Rand wouldn't punish feds who used Ashley Madison

[wizardwatson]

-rep

I NEVER neg rep folks, but this is ban worthy. Advocating killing two consenting adults for some 'sin'.... Is this what RPF has become? 11th century barbaric stone-throwing lunatics?

If marriage is a "union" then couldn't adultery be considered a crime even under a libertarian contract arrangement? I think it could, or else it isn't a contract.

And as far as 11th century barbarianism, is horse thievery worthy of capital punishment more than defiling a marriage? That was going on in 20th century America.

I don't even support the death penalty in general but the way this generation cherry-picks things to get righteously indignant about when it turns a blind eye to wholesale slaughter of the unborn is a tad much.

[cajuncocoa]

-rep

I NEVER neg rep folks, but this is ban worthy. Advocating killing two consenting adults for some 'sin'.... Is this what RPF has become? 11th century barbaric stone-throwing lunatics?

It's pretty damned scary what this place has become.

[jllundqu]

Lol... I got double neg repped for that post. I guess advocating the execution and murder of consenting adults is A-OK with the Christian Extremist Right. Adultery is wrong, but what happens in a marriage is between a man, his wife, and god. Anyone who advocates sitting in judgement against others and is willing to kill them for something that isn't even a crime is living in world I want no part of.

[hells_unicorn]

This isn't the religion sub forum. I'm not arguing whether it's a sin (in my religion, it is.)

Really? Then why did you bring Jesus into this discussion?

The discussion here is about what role the government should have, if any, in punishing adultery. I'm opposed to making adultery a crime....it's a civil matter between the two persons in the marriage contract.

Nobody is making adultery a crime, it was one from the very beginning of the human race, the breaking of the most fundamental law that constitutes society.

Execution, although the victim could choose not to cast the first stone, in which case death wouldn't be applied.

I would just like to state for the record to every one else since I'm sure Cajuncocoa and some of the other hippies running around here are jonesing for another round of excrement flinging that this is one of those areas where Christian Liberty and I are not in agreement, namely adultery being a capitol crime. I don't hold a theonomist viewpoint on OT law, and according to Covenater views on the abrogation of the old judicial punishments of the OT, the only crime that requires the death penalty in the second table of the law is murder, though it could also be applied in the cases of kidnapping, rape, incest, and certain other seriously aggravated offenses.

Adultery is not merely a matter of "Two Consenting Adults" or any of these other B.S. euphemisms that people love to throw around, it's an attack on the foundation of society, and enough of it will eventually lead to the destruction of society. However, in most cases, adultery is tied to varying degrees of covetousness rather than outright destructive rage, so a proper punishment would be putting the guilty party at the mercy of the wronged party. A cheating husband or wife being faced with losing everything they own and perhaps also facing the prospect of never attaining a legal marriage again would be both an effective deterrent and an appropriate punishment.

As to the matter of this business with Ashley Madison, though I wouldn't lose any sleep if the people who started said website were hit by a bus and sent screaming into perdition, it's pointless getting worked up about it. As a pagan empire, this is what America is all about, indulging every personal whim regardless of who it hurts, and then crying out for tolerance and making excuses when things turn sour. Let freedom ring.

Lol... I got double neg repped for that post. I guess advocating the execution and murder of consenting adults is A-OK with the Christian Extremist Right.

You got negative rep for playing mini-moderator and threatening another member with being banned. I don't concur with CL's position in this case, but I'll fight to the death to defend his right to have it. Isn't that what you goofy Libertarians claim to believe in?

[cajuncocoa]

Really? Then why did you bring Jesus into this discussion?



Nobody is making adultery a crime, it was one from the very beginning of the human race, the breaking of the most fundamental law that constitutes society.

I thought you didn't want to talk to me anymore. Missed me?

I think you'd be more suited to live in one of these 6 Muslim countries than in the U.S. (Their women probably wear burkas, too....so you'll never have to see a woman's knees ever again.)

[cajuncocoa]

Lol... I got double neg repped for that post. I guess advocating the execution and murder of consenting adults is A-OK with the Christian Extremist Right. Adultery is wrong, but what happens in a marriage is between a man, his wife, and god. Anyone who advocates sitting in judgement against others and is willing to kill them for something that isn't even a crime is living in world I want no part of.

+rep to offset the nonsense.

[hells_unicorn]

I thought you didn't want to talk to me anymore. Missed me?

I think you'd be more suited to live in one of these 6 Muslim countries than in the U.S. (Their women probably wear burkas, too....so you'll never have to see a woman's knees ever again.)

You want to answer my question?

[cajuncocoa]

You want to answer my question?

Which one?

[jllundqu]

You got negative rep for playing mini-moderator and threatening another member with being banned. I don't concur with CL's position in this case, but I'll fight to the death to defend his right to have it. Isn't that what you goofy Libertarians claim to believe in?

First, I'm not a libertarian, goofy or otherwise. (nice cheap shot, btw)

Second, advocating murder of innocent people could be construed as a violation of RPF mission statement and usage guidelines... certainly wouldn't help Rand out if media snipped that comment for a story.

If CL wants to push for a theocracy where people can be stoned to death for whatever the hell the bible says... take it to the religion sub-forum

[timosman]

Nobody is making adultery a crime, it was one from the very beginning of the human race, the breaking of the most fundamental law that constitutes society.

Could you clarify what law you are talking about ?

[erowe1]

First, I'm not a libertarian, goofy or otherwise. (nice cheap shot, btw)

Second, advocating murder of innocent people could be construed as a violation of RPF mission statement and usage guidelines... certainly wouldn't help Rand out if media snipped that comment for a story.

If CL wants to push for a theocracy where people can be stoned to death for whatever the hell the bible says... take it to the religion sub-forum

Theocrats were one of the biggest and most important parts of the coalition Ron Paul drew together. Hopefully they will be for Rand too. Pushing them away won't help our cause.

[cajuncocoa]

Theocrats were one of the biggest and most important parts of the coalition Ron Paul drew together. Hopefully they will be for Rand too. Pushing them away won't help our cause.

I'll take that chance, because I certainly don't want theocrats' cause to become mainstream.

[hells_unicorn]

Could you clarify what law you are talking about ?

Absolutely. I'll begin with a question. How are you here? Now I'll expand the question. How is anyone here? Answer, "two consenting adults" got together and decided to engage in coitus rather than all the lovely little "alternative" methods advocated by the Ancient Greeks and their American intellectual descendants of the sexual revolution, and thus the birds and the bees and the lovely little zygote that isn't a person and can be killed without consequence is formed.

Now, the plot really thickens because despite the advice of those illustrious feminists that freed us from the patriarchy, those "two consenting adults" opted not to at any point within the next 9 months dismember that mess of cells known as a fetus that still isn't a person. Then things really getting interesting when the miracle of child birth occurs and instantly the fetus gains its personhood and all the protections that comes with it, unless born feet first, but that's another story.

But then we have a good 18 years worth of teaching, feeding, protection, and general providing before we have a full functioning adult, at least according to the American definition. After all of this, simply multiply this process a few thousand times and you'll have a town, and a few million times and you'll have a nation. But keep in mind, any deviation from the process can interrupt the flow of where "two consenting adults" become society, and some interruptions are more subtle than others.

Now, to close off this lesson on human procreation, let's discuss the most fundamental of what makes this whole process work, namely loyalty between spouses. If we throw the fundamental deviation of adultery into the equation, we have a whole number of possibilities that could spell doom for society. Broken families tend to yield dysfunctional children, and often times criminals if we look at the examples of America's fine cities. Children who stay children despite growing bigger due to stunted social development from not having their baby-daddy being an actual daddy leads to a number of nice possibilities that I don't think I need to spell out. So not only do we have 1 person now not pulling their weight (how many whore-mongers had accounts on the website in question?), but we have a person that is also a potential threat to the lives and viability of others depending on how dysfunctional said person becomes and how morally deformed their upbringing has made them, and also the potential for said bad seed to spread some of this own around.

Society is a frail thing, if everyone in it were to shirk their responsibility to keep it going with well-rounded children, we'd probably lose it within 2 or 3 generations, or more likely would have it taken from us by people who prefer children to couple-swapping, thus we have the growing Islamic and Hispanic population and the declining, soon to be a minority, European population.

Any questions?

[jbauer]

What they get from their spouse after they find out usually is enough punishment. imo.

[hells_unicorn]

Which one?

If this isn't the religion forum, why did you bring Jesus into the discussion. I checked the whole thread, you dropped his name first, now kindly answer.

[cajuncocoa]

If this isn't the religion forum, why did you bring Jesus into the discussion. I checked the whole thread, you dropped his name first, now kindly answer.

Sure, and kindly. See, there were no religious beliefs expressed in that post. It's a fact, not a religious belief, that Jesus said those words to the adulteress in the Bible. Even an atheist would be able to see and admit that.

[hells_unicorn]

Sure, and kindly. See, there were no religious beliefs expressed in that post. It's a fact, not a religious belief, that Jesus said those words to the adulteress in the Bible. Even an atheist would be able to see and admit that.

According to most atheists I've dealt with, Christ is a fictional character in a fantasy novel created during the bronze age. Come to think of it, I held a position somewhat similar to this myself about 11 years ago. To all of our materialist friends on this forum, the minute you use the word "Jesus" or "Bible", we are talking religion.

I don't agree with them on this point, but in terms of subject matter, how are they actually wrong?

[cajuncocoa]

According to most atheists I've dealt with, Christ is a fictional character in a fantasy novel created during the bronze age. Come to think of it, I held a position somewhat similar to this myself about 11 years ago. To all of our materialist friends on this forum, the minute you use the word "Jesus" or "Bible", we are talking religion.

I don't agree with them on this point, but in terms of subject matter, how are they actually wrong?

Then consider it the words of a fictional character if that's how you choose to see it. It doesn't matter to me how you choose to see it since your opinions about so many other things have proven to be less than worthless.

[hells_unicorn]

Then consider it the words of a fictional character if that's how you choose to see it. It doesn't matter to me how you choose to see it since your opinions about so many other things have proven to be less than worthless.

I didn't say I viewed it that way, I stated that there was disagreement out there regarding your opinion on whether bringing a religious figure like Jesus into a discussion that you insist is not about religion is a contradiction or not. The level of cognitive dissonance in your posts on this issue indicated emotional attachment rather than rational thought. Evidently you are too emotional on this topic to engage in further discussion on it, so that will be all for this thread, though I do reserve the right to call out any nonsensical assertions in the future. Let the world beware.

[Brett85]

The federal employees who visited this website should be fired if they were visiting the website while they were working and at the taxpayer's expense. The same goes for if they look at pornography while at work.

[jllundqu]

Theocrats were one of the biggest and most important parts of the coalition Ron Paul drew together. Hopefully they will be for Rand too. Pushing them away won't help our cause.

How is a Theocracy (IE a system of government in which priests rule in the name of God or a god) even remotely commensurate with a free people? I am not a Christian, nor are millions of other Americans in this country. The only way you'd get to live in your Theocratic Utopia is if you had us all rounded up and burned at the stake....

[rich34]

According to most atheists I've dealt with, Christ is a fictional character in a fantasy novel created during the bronze age. Come to think of it, I held a position somewhat similar to this myself about 11 years ago. To all of our materialist friends on this forum, the minute you use the word "Jesus" or "Bible", we are talking religion.

I don't agree with them on this point, but in terms of subject matter, how are they actually wrong?

Sure, but adultery is being used in the religious sense not necessarily a criminal sense. For a "crime" to have taken place one of the two individuals involved would have had to object, which would then be rape. But in the case of adultery, I'm of the opinion that the people arguing for harsh laws are doing so based on religious convictions. That's why there was a need to bring up Christ, or as you put it the fictional character. At any rate, if someone is arguing from a biblical perspective the most easy way to counter that is to point them to the scripture that shows Christ having mercy, NOT blood for their sins. I hope this answers your question.

[cajuncocoa]

Evidently you are too emotional on this topic to engage in further discussion on it, so that will be all for this thread, though I do reserve the right to call out any nonsensical assertions in the future. Let the world beware.

Until the next time you just can't resist showing the world your cave man tendencies....

[cajuncocoa]

How is a Theocracy (IE a system of government in which priests rule in the name of God or a god) even remotely commensurate with a free people? I am not a Christian, nor are millions of other Americans in this country. The only way you'd get to live in your Theocratic Utopia is if you had us all rounded up and burned at the stake....

Don't think for a minute they might not try. You saw CL wanted to execute adulterers. Who knows what other "crimes" might be deemed worthy of the death penalty in the minds of these theocrats?

[cajuncocoa]

The federal employees who visited this website should be fired if they were visiting the website while they were working and at the taxpayer's expense. The same goes for if they look at pornography while at work.

The same should go if they're posting on RPF at work. As far as that's concerned it has nothing to do with sex, adultery, or Ashley Madison's site. That has to do with wasting taxpayer money. A whole different topic.

[Brett85]

The same should go if they're posting on RPF at work. As far as that's concerned it has nothing to do with sex, adultery, or Ashley Madison's site. That has to do with wasting taxpayer money. A whole different topic.

It seems like it's worse when they're doing something immoral on the taxpayer's dime. They do probably have designated break times when they can look at websites on the internet. During those break times I think they should be allowed to look at websites like this one but shouldn't be allowed to look at Ashley Madison or pornography.

[rich34]

Don't think for a minute they might not try. You saw CL wanted to execute adulterers. Who knows what other "crimes" might be deemed worthy of the death penalty in the minds of these theocrats?

Exactly, how about not keeping the Sabbath as a criminal act punishable by law, or not loving your neighbor, perhaps not loving the Lord thy God with all your heart, bearing false witness maybe, or more closely related to this topic thou shall not covet your neighbors wife? Moral sins that are non violent/committing no act of violence or theft against your neighbor are not acts that you can use the bully pulpit of the government to enforce your views on other people.

And just to add another reason for having to go into scripture in this thread is trying to show how Christ dealt with these very acts of "criminal behavior" and how he dealt with them in a worldly sense. Never did he drag people into courts, or call for blood. But on the contrary, when speaking of sin He said that a sin is a sin and they're all the same in God's eyes. Also adding that they all can be forgiven with the exception of blaspheming the Holy Spirit. It's not my intention to try and drag this farther into a religious debate, but I think it's helpful/fruitful in situations like this to point out and try to explain why certain "immoral" acts of non violence should in no way be labeled as "criminal behavior" with penalties from the government which go as far as DEATH for committing an immoral act of adultery.

[cajuncocoa]

It seems like it's worse when they're doing something immoral on the taxpayer's dime. They do probably have designated break times when they can look at websites on the internet. During those break times I think they should be allowed to look at websites like this one but shouldn't be allowed to look at Ashley Madison or pornography.

Even here at RPF we've seen some threads labeled NSFW (not safe for work). Only a fool would use their work computer for such things...or they don't care if they lose their job. But then, we're talking about people who signed up to cheat on their spouses, so I don't know what the mindset is.

In my previous post, I wasn't speaking about what they do on break though. I was referring to time when they're supposed to actually be working.

[Suzanimal]

Lol... I got double neg repped for that post. I guess advocating the execution and murder of consenting adults is A-OK with the Christian Extremist Right. Adultery is wrong, but what happens in a marriage is between a man, his wife, and god. Anyone who advocates sitting in judgement against others and is willing to kill them for something that isn't even a crime is living in world I want no part of.

+rep to offset the nonsense.

Same here. +rep

You got negative rep for playing mini-moderator and threatening another member with being banned. I don't concur with CL's position in this case, but I'll fight to the death to defend his right to have it. Isn't that what you goofy Libertarians claim to believe in?

Shunning is perfectly libertarian.

[Christian Liberty]

SMH. IDK why Christians would even think of such a thing. That's a barbarism more characteristic of paganism and certain archaic semitic philosophies.

You mean like the Old Testament?

I would just like to state for the record to every one else since I'm sure Cajuncocoa and some of the other hippies running around here are jonesing for another round of excrement flinging that this is one of those areas where Christian Liberty and I are not in agreement, namely adultery being a capitol crime. I don't hold a theonomist viewpoint on OT law, and according to Covenater views on the abrogation of the old judicial punishments of the OT, the only crime that requires the death penalty in the second table of the law is murder, though it could also be applied in the cases of kidnapping, rape, incest, and certain other seriously aggravated offenses.

Adultery is not merely a matter of "Two Consenting Adults" or any of these other B.S. euphemisms that people love to throw around, it's an attack on the foundation of society, and enough of it will eventually lead to the destruction of society. However, in most cases, adultery is tied to varying degrees of covetousness rather than outright destructive rage, so a proper punishment would be putting the guilty party at the mercy of the wronged party. A cheating husband or wife being faced with losing everything they own and perhaps also facing the prospect of never attaining a legal marriage again would be both an effective deterrent and an appropriate punishment.

As to the matter of this business with Ashley Madison, though I wouldn't lose any sleep if the people who started said website were hit by a bus and sent screaming into perdition, it's pointless getting worked up about it. As a pagan empire, this is what America is all about, indulging every personal whim regardless of who it hurts, and then crying out for tolerance and making excuses when things turn sour. Let freedom ring.



You got negative rep for playing mini-moderator and threatening another member with being banned. I don't concur with CL's position in this case, but I'll fight to the death to defend his right to have it. Isn't that what you goofy Libertarians claim to believe in?

I do know some covenanters who want the DP for adultery, BTW. And you're actually the first one I've met who doesn't. Just curious, why do you disagree with it?

Also, I'll grant you the distinction for murder per the Noahic covenant, but if death is also justifiable for things like rape and incest, why not for adultery as well? Leaving aside the question of obligatory.

How is a Theocracy (IE a system of government in which priests rule in the name of God or a god) even remotely commensurate with a free people? I am not a Christian, nor are millions of other Americans in this country. The only way you'd get to live in your Theocratic Utopia is if you had us all rounded up and burned at the stake....

No that's not Biblical.